The apparent endorsement in the title of Jeremy Wagstaff's article reminds me of one of my own made up slogans. Wagstaff like myself generally sees positive things for Wikipedia (WP) despite the recent WikiScanner episode. The best part is where he writes: "The truth is that Wikipedia has come of age. Wikipedia is now important enough for ExxonMobil, The Church of Scientology, the U.S. Defense Department and the Australian government to spend time and effort trying to get their version of events across. If it was so irrelevant or unreliable, why would these people bother?"  Wagstaff

My comments: We still have to keep in mind that most "proof" to date only shows that "someone" at these large entities did some editing. I like to generalize but it may very well be low level people doing the edits. Still, many of these entities are now examining their WP policies, and probably will even put someone in charge of dealing with their article. Can the same be said of Google? No, Exxon doesn't give a darn about Google because it can't effect it. Because Exxon might effect WP, Exxon cares about WP. The lack of the ability to interact, in this case is important.

Wagstaff also writes: "Of course, coming of age isn't always a good thing. A recent conference on Wikipedia in Taiwan highlighted how Wikipedia is no longer an anarchic, free-for-all, but has somehow miraculously produced a golden egg."

I wrote about Wikipedia the Golden Egg back in June. The goose is in my opinion is the free flow of information. Perhaps someone at WP is reading my blog? I'd disagree with Wagstaff here because I see what he's describing, "anarchic, free-for-all" as close to the free flow of information. Perhaps it's a matter of degrees. The "somehow" is what free markets do. It's not understood by most, just as libertarians are not well understood.